- (1.) THE petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated January 2, 2012 is alleging police inaction in that the police have not taken necessary steps in execution of the orders passed by the Civil Court in his suit against the private respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 1737 of 2011 against the eight private respondents in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. He prayed, inter alia, for a mandatory injunction directing restoration of water supply to the suit premises. He filed an application under O.39, Rr.1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. Considering his application, the Civil Court passed an order dated September 3, 2011 (at p.92) directing the defendants in the suit to restore water supply to the suit premises immediately. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under s.151 CPC alleging that in spite of the order dated September 3, 2011 water supply was not restored. By an order dated December 13, 2011 (at p.105) the s.151 application was allowed permitting the petitioner to instal a pump to draw water from the existing under ground reservoir of the building up to the overhead tank, and restraining the defendants in the suit from putting up any resistance. The petitioner alleging that for resistance put up by the defendants in the suit he has unable to instal the pump and restore water supply to the suit premises then filed another application under s.151 CPC. By an order dated December 19, 2011 (at p.126) the s.151 application was allowed directing the officer in charge of Bowbazar police station to see that orders of the Court dated September 3, 2011 and December 13, 2011 were carried out by the defendants in the suit and also to provide all assistance to the petitioner at the time of installation of the pump in the suit premises.
(3.) NOW alleging that in spite of the order dated December 19, 2011 the officer in charge of the police station has not taken any step the petitioner has filed this WP Relying on Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.v. Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, AIR 1961 SC 182, counsel for the petitioner has argued that seeking a mandamus commanding the officer in charge to act in terms of the order of the Civil Court dated December 19, 2011 the petitioner can approach the High Court under art.226. In my opinion, this is a totally misconceived WP. In the name of police inaction what the petitioner is actually seeking is execution of the three interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Court in his pending suit. I do not find any merit in the argument that since the orders are not decrees, the petitioner could not initiate proceedings for their execution. In view of the provisions of s.36 of the Code the orders could and, if necessary, were to be executed through the Court that passed them.;